GoFetch: New side-channel attack using data memory-dependent prefetchers

To be clear that includes what we're all doing by downloading and running Javascript to read HN.

Maybe I can say "don't run adversarial code on my same CPU" and only care about over-the-network CPU side-channels (of which there are still some), because I write Go crypto, but it doesn't sound like something my colleagues writing browser code can do.

Software is now critical infrastructure in modern society, akin to the power grid and telephone lines. It's a strategic vulnerability to neglect security, and it must happen at all levels of the software and hardware stack. Meaning, trying to crash an enemy's entire society by bricking all of its computers and send them back to the dark ages in milliseconds. I fundamentally don't understand the mindset of people who want to take that kind of risk for a 10% boost in their games' FPS[1].

Part of that is paying back the debt that decades of cutting corners has yielded us.

In reality, the vast majority of the 1000x increase in performance and memory capacity over the past four decades has come from shrinking transistors and increasing clockspeeds and memory density--the 1 or 5 or 10% gains from turning off bounds checks or prefetching aren't the lion's share. And for the record, turning off bounds checks is monumentally stupid, and people should be jailed for it.

[1] I'm exaggerating to make a point here. What we trade for a little desktop or server performance is an enormous, pervasive risk. Not just melting down in a cyberwar, but the constant barrage of intrusion and leaks that costs the economy billions upon billions of dollars per year. We're paying for security, just at the wrong end.

Note that in the vast majority of cases, crypto-related code isn't what we spend compute cycles on. If there was a straightforward, cross-architecture mechanism to say, "run this code on a single physical core with no branch prediction, no shared caches, and using in-order execution" then the real-world performance impact would be minimal, but the security benefits would be huge.

Have you even read the paper? Especially the part where the attack applies to everyone’s previous idea of “timing agnostic” code, and the part where Apple does not respect the (new) DIT flag on M1/M2?

An overclocked 486 PC that can only run a single program at a time and isn't continuously connected to a network might be very secure, but replacing every modern computer with something like it will not be even remotely feasible. In most situations, it would be better to have some risk tolerance, and couple modern hardware with mitigations, disposability, and supply-chain security instead.

The kernel would have to be aware of it in order to be able to restore its state across context switches though, unless it's part of a set of registers that is automatically persisted. But given that Apple is publicly documenting this flag, I suppose it is.

Here's an interesting conversation by the Go developers from as early as 2021 being suspicious of DIT: https://github.com/golang/go/issues/49702

I truly cannot understand why this is brought up so often. You aren't paying for it, it doesn't hurt you in any way, it detracts nothing from the findings (in fact, it makes the findings easier to discuss), etc. There is no downside I can think of.

Can you share what the downsides of a picture of a puppy and a $5 domain are? Sorry, "branding" and "marketing page"?

Or at least, maybe you can share what you think would be a more preferable way?